Obama either looked down his nose or looked bored the entire summit.

Kudos to Lauren Ashley (Miss Beverly Hills) being bold on same sex marriage!

On Glenn Beck's Speech at CPAC

I watched a number of the speeches at the 2010 CPAC. Some were boringly predictable, very "Republican Establishment". Some were opportunistic, seizing on the energy and momentum of the TEA party movement, using all the right words, but lacking sincerity. But others were brutally honest and heartfelt. Glenn Beck's keynote speech was one such presentation.

If I had given the same speech, or something very close to it, one major difference would have been that I would emphasize the spiritual aspect that most--even Beck--don't quite grasp. Glenn several times referred to an ability of Americans to survive doing the hard thing, making the tough choices, hitting our bottom and climbing back out. He kept saying it's "because we're Americans". I'd argue that being Americans is really nothing, in and of itself. But, what does make us different is that our country was founded upon the understanding that God's hand was on it and would succeed, no matter what the challenge, by relying upon God. And, consistently, the people of this nation has returned to its knees at its darkest times. So far, God has answered the prayers of the faithful.

Because Glenn Beck's speech was both scathing of its indictment of the HUGE failings of the Republican party and hopeful that this nation can again rise to greatness--not necessarily depending on a party, but rather returning to the ideals of our founders--there are some who take offense at either the message or the method Beck presented. Bill Bennet, long considered a stalwart of the Republican party, quickly attempted to throw water on the fire Glenn ignited. Personally, I consider Bill Bennet to be nothing more than the tired antique of a party that looks down its nose on us "common folk", much the way the Democrats do. I'll address the concerns that Mr. Bennet raised in a recent article.

First off, he clearly didn't like that Beck used the analogy of his own battle with alcohol to illustrate the abuses of the Republican Establishment. Bennet's complaint had nothing to do with the point of the analogy, which I contend was absolutely fitting, but with his claim that using personal failings to extrapolate into the public sphere is taboo. Mr. Bennet, what you apparently are incapable of considering is that the very tendencies of human beings in a fallen state, the ones that also make alcoholism a problem, are the same ones that make greed for money and power and the short-sightedness to realize that what we are doing is ultimately wrong and dangerous. If you care to take me on in a more in-depth debate over the validity of such an analogy, I'll happy take you on.

Next, Mr. Bennet actually believes that Glenn Beck's contention that the Republican party is not admitting it actually has a problem. He cites examples like McCain, DeMint, Coburn and Pence, all allegedly have admitted the excesses of the party and done "constructive and serious work to correct them and find and promote solutions". Really? Are you serious? I'm sorry, Mr. Bennet, but you lost all credibility with me as soon as you brought up McCain, who is a RINO. As I've mentioned earlier, too many of the Establishment Republicans caught the wind of the TEA party and realized they need to change their tune or face the threat of being ousted by the same wave that will oust a good many of Democrats. We who understand the issues that the TEA party movement represents can smell insincerity a mile off. People like Bill Bennet are old-school and simply do not get it. Bill Bennet then asked a rhetorical question about whether Glenn Beck lumped people like Michele Bachmann in the same group as Nancy Pelosi. What a preposterous bunch of trash. Beck did nothing of the sort. And, in fact, he has, on his program, looked quite closely at a number of the newer Republicans, like Bachmann (of whom I have great admiration), and recognized the potential in them. What Beck is saying -- what I've been saying -- is that the old and tired guard in the Republican party refuses to truly, deeply, honestly believe they've screwed up big time and that people like Bachmann, Rubio, Palin all have elements that, if properly assisted, could create a new renaissance.

Next, amazingly, Bennet truly didn't like Beck's admonishment that it is "morning in America", but that it was analogous to the sickening, hung-over kind of morning that often accompanies either realizing you've hit bottom and finally make that life-changing decision to do the hard thing...or prompts you to find a quick fix, a "hair of the dog", that calms your nerves and fools you into thinking you don't really have a problem, enabling you to hit another binge party a couple of weeks later. Mr. Bennet, are you so ignorant of history that you don't see that, repeatedly, the Republicans have been in this position before? The Republicans get into power, squander it, like the taste of power, and waste money on as much senselessness as the Democrats and are shocked when they are summarily swept out of power. As a lean process improvement facilitator, I clearly recognize repeat problems that are the result of people who never really did a root cause analysis and refuse to admit their band-aids were a sham and a waste. Bennet's complaint that Beck dares to suggest that purging the party of what he perceives as the problem (what I'd call a cancer) is weak. In fact, just as Scripture refers to the lukewarm being spit out (which is precisely what is going on worldwide--the hot and the cold are being more defined every day). The point and the analogy is appropriate.

Bennet himself mentioned the repeated cycle involving the movement back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, but didn't see the sense of breaking that chain by doing something different, taking a different approach. This is exactly what I'd expect from someone who has been too long a part of the tired establishment. He doesn't think that there are a great many similarities in the two parties. Perhaps not with specific people, but the behaviors and predictable weaknesses are, in fact, horribly similar. Again, a point I would love to debate Bennet on.

Bennet's last paragraph is simplistic at best and shows that either he is incapable of understanding the nuances of Glenn Beck's analogies or decided expending the energy to craft a more thought-out response wasn't worth it. Well, Mr. Bennet, I use to be a dues-paying member of the Republican party. I left that party shortly after the Republican Congress became drunken sailors with power, feeding into every special interest that would line their greedy little coffers, shortly after GW Bush showed he was clueless to the problem of illegal immigration and other issues. As I have posted time and again, the Republican party simply morphed into Democrat-lite. Yes, Bill, there is a difference between drunk and sober. The Democrats were drunk to the point of near lack of consciousness. The Republicans were simply drunk to the point of sleeping with the enemy and having no memory of it the next day. Not recongizing that, Mr. Bennet is what is dangerous. You are cordially invited to get the heck out of our way.

On Palin Crib Notes, Health Care and The Economy

It’s been a while since my last post – involvement with a tribute to the founder of local award-winning community theater group, The Upstagers, (Fred Brockwell) kept me busy – so I’ve got a lot I can blog about. Let’s start with Sarah Palin’s appearance at the TEA Party Convention. Her speech has been categorized as “red meat”. Largely, that’s true. I have to say, as an conservative independent, I was a bit disappointed that she relied a bit too much on what most would agree were partisan slams – even if they were all based on truth. However, as is SO typical of the lamestream media, the Whitehouse and all Palin-haters (that’s what you are, plain and simple—you’re lying if you claim anything else) it wasn’t so much the content of her speech that has their attention. It’s the crib notes she had in the palm of her hand. What you will hear them complain about is that Palin hypocritically berates Obama over his teleprompter use all the while relying on the perceived “bumpkin” method of writing on her hand.

Let me tell all you Palin-haters something. I use to compete in extemporaneous and impromptu speech. Depending on the situation, I relied upon a 3x5 card, a slip of paper or writing on my hand to keep to my main points. I WON competitions with these methods. It has also served me in a great many public speaking opportunities, political and otherwise. I will go up against anyone in a substantive debate using a combination of simple notes and my broad knowledge of a many topics. Do I always use notes? Hardly. If I think there’s a possibility of me getting stirred up and heading off on a rabbit trail, I have no problem with crib notes. And I can assure you that most speakers rely on various little methods to do the same as Palin—you just haven’t caught them at it. I challenge you to find any more than a handful (get it?) of instances where Sarah Palin relied on this simple device. Now, compare that to ALL the myriad times that Obama has completely relied on a teleprompter, even for the most mundane of appearances. He fumbles badly enough when he USES a teleprompter, but he’s an embarrassment to this country almost every time he opens his mouth when he DOESN’T use a teleprompter. Now, add to this the childish attempt at humor/insult made by press secretary Gibbs. That was just plain stupid, and shows how obsessed and desperate he, Obama and the rest of the administration is with Palin. I’ve got news for you people, if you are so dense you can’t seem to get it through your thick heads…your continued shots at Sarah Palin do nothing more than inflame those who support her and actually serve to build more support for her among those who might be on the fence. You really aren’t that bright, for all your alleged education, are you?

One last comment on Jon Stewart’s attack on Palin (The Daily Show). First off, Jon, how’s that being a “third ratey comedian on an eighth-ratey network no one above a fifth-gradey intellect would watch” thing workin’ out for ya? Yeah, I thought so. Lame, buddy, very lame. Climb down off of your elitist high-horse, find the real world and get a clue, why don’t ya? Anyway, did it ever occur to you – oh, wait a minute, of COURSE not, because you’re gray matter has fewer convolutions than the average human – that a lot of us prefer someone who speaks genuinely to the citizenry instead of the pompous, “I look down my nose at you literally and figuratively” presentation style of Obama, Pelosi and Reid? Hmm? She speaks in a manner that most of us speak to each other on any given topic. She speaks straight and from the heart, using a great deal of what use to be common sense. This is something lacking a great deal in most politicians, regardless of party or philosophical leaning. You are invited to debate the actual substance of what she says, most certainly. If she can't take that, then she has no business in politics. But go after her for her style of speaking and presentation? Buddy, I'll show you as many examples of your messiah's horrible skills. So, please sit down, shut up and color, Jon.

Now, on to the Health Care issue. I’ve said this before, but I think it requires frequent restatement because too many political pundits don’t think carefully enough about what they are saying when they speak on this topic. I despise the phrases “health care is dead” or “they’re against health care reform”. That’s completely wrong, untrue. The TRUTH is that we conservatives fully realize that our health care SYSTEM is in need of fixing in some areas. Health CARE in America is absolutely the best in the world, period. The CARE and the SYSTEM are connected, but one can be bad while the other isn’t. Here’s the ludicrous nature of the Progressive argument. First they complained about health care COSTS being too high. This is a debatable contention, worthy of examination. However, the TRUE nature of what they have wanted all along eventually reared its ugly head. They changed the case to health care COVERAGE or INSURANCE. From that point on, every single ounce of their energy has been spent to pay off anyone who resisted to agree to a complete toss of our current system in favor of something that either initially or eventually would result in the government owning the process. Doctors and institutions would work for the government (indirectly, of course) and we would all be enslaved by the same government to pay into this socialized medicine. If you look at the mish-mash bills in both the House and Senate, you’ll eventually figure out that they do very little to actually REDUCE COSTS, in favor of simply making sure enough people are forced to buy into the system so that the high costs would be covered…to a point.

They don’t reduce costs, you say? Well, there are a number of price controls in those bills, you say! Uh-huh, that’s where the lie is, my friends. Price controls are NOT the same as cost reduction. If it truly costs a doctor $100 to provide a procedure (this is a SERVICE, by the way) but the government tells the doctor he will only get $50 for it, did they control the COST or the PRICE? Yep, the PRICE. And just how long do you think it will be before the doctor stops providing the service? Historically, price controls have never worked. They’ve resulted in lost productivity, lost revenue, failed businesses and job losses. Does that mean some sort of regulation shouldn’t be examined? Not at all. But it has to be with the mindset of being a legitimate solution to padding or gouging while still protecting the strengths of the capitalist mechanism. I came up with the following axiom, which I still hold to: A product or service is worth no LESS than I will sell it for and no MORE than you would pay for it. When those to meet, we have a transaction.

But where does this axiom falter? I would argue with health care insurance itself. When YOU are not actually forking over the $$ directly for medical services but rather relying on an insurance policy, it’s very easy to see price structures go awry. The more “hands” that come between you and your doctor, the more overhead and costs are involved. I think I can make a convincing case for TARGETTED reform of our health care processes (start by getting LEAN and SIX SIGMA experts together to attack the problem, NOT politicians) rather than moving to a single-payer, government controlled system that the Progressives desperately want.

This brings me to the trap I believe that Obama is laying for the Republicans. Now, I’ll give the President a pat on the back for finally saying he wants to sit down with the Republicans. At least, that’s what he said in public. The problem with this is that he has said he refuses to scrap the disgusting legislation the Senate and House currently have sitting on the table. He can’t even get his own party to completely agree on those, so exactly what does he think he will accomplish with the Republicans who REALLY can’t stand these two bills? Surely he’s not that stupid. The Republicans have stated quite clearly they’d love to come to the table, starting from scratch. They are not the party of “no”. They are the party of “let’s pick this apart and fix the parts that we all can agree are broken”. The Democrats are saying “if you’re not agreeing to cover everyone, then we have nothing to talk about”. Democrats are the "all or nothing" party. This, again, proves my point that it’s about control, not about actually solving what’s wrong with the system. COVERAGE disappears as an issue if the COSTS become more affordable. That’s as simple as it gets, folks. I don’t need ANY insurance if I can afford to pay for most of my medical needs. By the way, most doctors and hospitals will work out modest payment plans in lieu of insurance—I know, because we’ve done it. Tax-deductible health care savings accounts are another way to prepare for the unexpected (Obama wants to tax those, by the way). But what Obama is expecting to do in this big meeting at Blair House is sit the Republicans down, shove the current bills in front of them and say, ”Okay, folks, tell me what parts you can’t stand and let’s see if we can’t convince you to run with them anyway”. As soon as the Republicans tell him all the pieces they can’t agree to, he, Pelosi and Reid will again label them the party of “no” and tell the American people “those bad Republicans don’t want health care reform”.

Here’s what SHOULD happen: START WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT’S BROKEN. Is the Cost piece broken? Significantly. Is the Delivery piece broken? Less so. Is the Regulatory piece broken? Largely. Again, stop thinking of insurance coverage as the problem and solution, when it is simply an industry responding to the actual pieces that are broken. And if you really want to fix the broken pieces of our health care system, you have to divest yourself of inordinate concern over the potential job losses in the insurance industry. I believe there will still be a need for a modest industry supporting Catastrophic Insurance. SIDE BAR: Encouraging regular checkups, etc. is NOT a dependable solution to reducing health care needs. How do I know this? I’m a prime example. I’m 47 years old and I do not see a dentist of physician except when I absolutely have to. I have a very good insurance package, but I refuse to visit. There is nothing short of a court order that would make me change my behavior in this area. I otherwise take good care of myself. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t come down with some catastrophic illness (thank You, God, that Christ has redeemed me from that, however!). But the “preventive concept” the Progressives are relying on to help save their system is a fallacy. Coverage in no way promises a change in behavior.

Last, but not least, the economy. There is no rhetoric or spin that can truly deny the fact that Bush’s and Obama’s stimulus efforts have created no substantive jobs. It’s a fact, folks. They have nothing to show for it. I will forever maintain that we’d have been better off if the government had not done anything and let the chips fall where they may. We’d have hit bottom faster and bounced BACK faster, because that’s how we are. We are never so motivate than when we are knocked down the hardest. That’s historical fact. When we put our fall into slow motion we are lulled into a false sense of security and are ultimately less likely to do what it takes to claw our way back to greatness. From a spiritual standpoint, God is best able to operate when we finally get to the end of ourselves and completely rely on Him. That has been shown Biblically and historically. However, what do the Progressives cite as evidence of their success? Imagined “savings of jobs” and a list of anecdotal projects. But that’s all the government can actually do, is create projects. That, and create public-sector jobs (meaning you work for them). That is NOT true job creation. I maintain it is NOT the business of the government TO create jobs. It is the business of government to promote an environment FOR job creation. Extending the debt ceiling for government does the exact opposite. Increasing taxes does the exact opposite. Let me ask you something…if I know that the fees, taxes, and other hidden costs for starting up and running a business are going to grow, just how likely do you think it will be that I want to actually start up a business? I am actually faced with that very question. And I’ll tell you I’m a lot less likely. This mess started during the Bush administration shortly after the Democrats gained control of Congress. While they hated Bush, he all too often helped them in their endeavor to increase federal debt and throw good money after bad in the form of the first stimulus package. Obama came into office, Democrats got supermajorities, and super-accelerated this debt and redistribution of wealth. In spite of this, the stock market grudgingly started a march upward (with no corresponding job creation). At the time of this posting, the DOW dropped dramatically below the 10k mark again, showing the weakness of the market and vulnerability to the wrecklessness of the current administration.

At this point, I’d rather have a Congress that is deadlocked than one that continues to work toward a socialist state. The 2010 elections may give us a chance to at least halt the downward spiral and give us enough breathing room to get some sense about us.

Condolences to the family of Rep John Murtha. Couldn't stand his politics, but I'm sure his family will miss him.

An 11 year old CHILD gave birth to a baby boy. This angers me beyond expression.

The House just voted to add another $1.9 Trillion to our debt limit, 217 - 212. I will inform you later on how Ciro voted.

House Dem. James Clyburn: "We've got to spend our way out of this recession." Raise your hand if this worked in your household.

How sad...Air Force Academy established a "Wiccan prayer circle".

Change you voted for: $1.1 Trillion in tax increases! Fire Congress!